-Doing well on a test does not correlate to being a top performer, it isn’t exclusive of that ... but the smartest people are not always the best at the practical application and again ... being a SNCO / senior enlisted is more than what is in the study guide.

Now replace "test" with "PT test". I'd rather have my SNCOs know what's in the PDG than be able to run 1 1/2 miles, especially when the SNCOs aren't going to be the one's doing any of the physical work at home or down range. So if they are getting rid of the written test, how can the PT test be justified (for SNCOs)? But the same people who tell you the written test isn't needed will preach about the importance of doing 40 crunches.

So basically, when it comes down to getting a good stratification (my #1 guy), as a bare minimum your rater and senior rater should both a) Know you, and b) Like you. Assuming a & b had anything to do with being a good workerbee, you then choose to give the strat to the one who also is the PTL, cooks at the BBQ, and participates in Sq sports. Pretty straight forward process!

The part missed, though, is the amount of time given to those extras, taking away from actually being on the job. That's what creates tension in the shop. Even if guy A is a good worker, if he's not around to do the work, guy B is going to have to pick up the slack.

Now replace "test" with "PT test". I'd rather have my SNCOs know what's in the PDG than be able to run 1 1/2 miles, especially when the SNCOs aren't going to be the one's doing any of the physical work at home or down range. So if they are getting rid of the written test, how can the PT test be justified (for SNCOs)? But the same people who tell you the written test isn't needed will preach about the importance of doing 40 crunches.

I am not saying that being technically proficient isn't important, and that testing should be thrown out. Using an academic test absent a performance evaluation only tells you what someone could be doing, not how they are doing. I have known several highly intelligent people not willing to work hard, period. Subjectively, I rather promote the one who scores a bit worse on a paper test but performs better.

I don't think a PT test should be preeminent above all else, but I do believe in having one, and failing one having consequences. None of the services basic physical fitness tests are that hard, maxing one may be harder as we get older ... just passing it / taking it should be simple. As far as why senior enlisted or officers should still take it, they may have to drag, carry or pull someone out of a bad situation, space engulfed in smoke & fumes etc. Also, anecdotally ... over 27 years of service I have stood a lot of watches and worked a lot of shift work; people in better physical shape seem to do better with the rotational watches and when the work / OPTEMPO does not permit periods of normal rest.

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

First (a little off topic) it's great to see the forum have these kind of discussions again. Looking at all the discussions of the posters, with some having over 40 years of experience, it's obvious that EPRs (in my day AD it was an APR) have always been a bone of contention and probably will never get to the point everyone is satisfied. One thing I didn't see a lot of discussion about was Senior Endorsements. I'm not sure if that had any bearing on promotion but I always tried to get one for an excellent performer.

I am not saying that being technically proficient isn't important, and that testing should be thrown out. Using an academic test absent a performance evaluation only tells you what someone could be doing, not how they are doing. I have known several highly intelligent people not willing to work hard, period. Subjectively, I rather promote the one who scores a bit worse on a paper test but performs better.

100% agree. The (mission related work) performer should always have the advantage.

I don't think a PT test should be preeminent above all else, but I do believe in having one, and failing one having consequences. None of the services basic physical fitness tests are that hard, maxing one may be harder as we get older ... just passing it / taking it should be simple. As far as why senior enlisted or officers should still take it, they may have to drag, carry or pull someone out of a bad situation, space engulfed in smoke & fumes etc. Also, anecdotally ... over 27 years of service I have stood a lot of watches and worked a lot of shift work; people in better physical shape seem to do better with the rotational watches and when the work / OPTEMPO does not permit periods of normal rest.

Not saying fitness isn't important. However, the AF test has nothing to do with fitness, does not improve fitness, etc. But that's a completely different topic that's been beat to death.

First (a little off topic) it's great to see the forum have these kind of discussions again. Looking at all the discussions of the posters, with some having over 40 years of experience, it's obvious that EPRs (in my day AD it was an APR) have always been a bone of contention and probably will never get to the point everyone is satisfied. One thing I didn't see a lot of discussion about was Senior Endorsements. I'm not sure if that had any bearing on promotion but I always tried to get one for an excellent performer.

I am not saying that being technically proficient isn't important, and that testing should be thrown out. Using an academic test absent a performance evaluation only tells you what someone could be doing, not how they are doing. I have known several highly intelligent people not willing to work hard, period. Subjectively, I rather promote the one who scores a bit worse on a paper test but performs better.

The SKT test tells you what a person knows, not how well they can or wjill do the job. I found it isn't the intelligence of the person to work hard but their motivation. Like you, I've seen people proudly doing the bare minimum and expecting to be promoted. One person, a TSgt, stated to the rest of us SSgts the reason he has the smallest desk is because you can put much work on it. His mistake was the flight superintendent overheard him say this and brought out a bunch of computer listings and gave him extra work. I'd rather work with someone who was motivated but lacking book knowledge than someone with book knowledge and unmotivitated.

I don't think a PT test should be preeminent above all else, but I do believe in having one, and failing one having consequences. None of the services basic physical fitness tests are that hard, maxing one may be harder as we get older ... just passing it / taking it should be simple. As far as why senior enlisted or officers should still take it, they may have to drag, carry or pull someone out of a bad situation, space engulfed in smoke & fumes etc. Also, anecdotally ... over 27 years of service I have stood a lot of watches and worked a lot of shift work; people in better physical shape seem to do better with the rotational watches and when the work / OPTEMPO does not permit periods of normal rest.

When I was in, the PT test was a joke. Running, walking, or doing the bike test didn't mean I was fit. What I learned, by experience, was whether people could work in the field for a couple of hours without taking a break was a better indication of fitness and than anything else. I agree, officers and SNCOs need to take the test if for nothing else to demonstrate to NCO and junior enlisted the need to be able to perform physical activities applies to everyone.